On Friday, March 21st, Promovendi Netwerk Nederland (PNN) presented the results of our latest study “Four years of contract, five+ years of work” on the factors that influence timely PhD completion. The event, held at Vechtclub XL in Utrecht, brought together nearly eighty PhD candidates, policymakers, and academic stakeholders for an afternoon of discussion and reflection. Following the presentation, there was a thought-provoking panel discussion, moderated by Joeri Tijdink, with panelists Marie-José van Tol, Israel Carrete, Andrea Kis, and Anke Hammerschlag. Here are some key insights we gained from the discussion.
The myth of the four year PhD
One thing was immediately clear: the idea that most PhD candidates finish within four years is simply not grounded in reality. The question is not just who finishes on time, but who leaves the PhD track altogether—and why. The panel challenged the audience to rethink our success metrics: “If finishing within four years is a rare occurrence—should that really be our standard?” Meanwhile, it was pointed out that timely completion is possible, but under specific conditions. PhD candidates with strict deadlines owing to stringent visa requirements are notably more likely to finish on time.
Image credit: Martine van der Linde, PNN
Who is to blame for delays?
A recurring theme in the discussion was responsibility—and the imbalance in how it is currently distributed. It’s not about who is to blame, but who suffers the consequences. Too often, that burden falls on the PhD candidate. While it’s tempting to point fingers at supervisors, the panel emphasized that structural problems lie at the heart of the issue. Supervisors often lack time, support, and training. Most institutions still do not offer mandatory supervisory training, nor do they provide realistic time allocations for supervision, which is especially problematic for supervisors juggling large numbers of PhD candidates. The panelists therefore argued that it should be clearer what it means to be a supervisor and what the job consists of. Adding to that, realistic supervision hours should be set, and maybe even formal (re)accreditation of supervisory competencies over time.
The discussion also touched on multi-institutional PhD supervision, especially for PhD candidates at universities of applied sciences, a growing phenomenon that can blur the lines of responsibility. The group agreed: rather than asking who is ultimately accountable, institutions must collaborate to ensure continuous and clear support for the PhD candidate. That support should include ensuring accountability at the institutional and management level and protecting the duty of care that universities hold towards their PhDs.
Image credit: Martine van der Linde, PNN
Good supervision: what does that look like?
The need to assess supervision quality came up repeatedly. Some institutions, like Maastricht University, already have formal evaluation procedures in place after supervisors have guided five or more candidates. However, the panel called for a more co-creative approach: involve both current and former PhD candidates in defining what good supervision means. To avoid dependency and fear of retaliation, feedback mechanisms must be anonymous, and where possible, include voices from former PhDs who are no longer tied to their supervisors’ evaluations. Moreover, participants stressed the importance of shifting academic hiring criteria to value supervisory and social skills, not just research excellence. After all, a good researcher is not automatically a good mentor.
It’s all about expectation management
Another key insight: misaligned expectations are a major contributor to delays. While supervisors often expect independence and proactivity, these expectations are rarely discussed explicitly—let alone in terms of cultural or interpersonal differences. Clear and early communication about expectations—not just academic, but also behavioral and relational—can go a long way in building trust and preventing future conflict.
So what needs to change?
The consensus was clear: we’ve known about these issues for a long time. What’s missing is the will—and the system—to act. The panel emphasized that PhD candidates should not be the only ones in the room when these discussions take place. Supervisors and academic leaders must be part of the conversation. During this event, it became clear that the audience lacked supervisors (there were just three of them in the room).
Image credit: Martine van der Linde, PNN
Some key takeaways for systemic change:
- Integrate supervision quality into annual assessments.
- Provide structural resources and funding for PhD trajectories.
- Reevaluate the number of PhD candidates being trained in relation to available academic careers, and the time available for supervision.
- Consider whether we need a uniform 4-year model or a flexible, bottom-up support system that adapts to different research needs and life circumstances.
At the end of the discussion, panelists shared their “magic wand” wishes for the PhD system: truly value good supervision, change the academic culture to one that supports well-being and realistic career expectations, and offer more permanent contracts to increase stability and mentorship continuity.
PNN’s study once again underlines what many already know: timely PhD completion is not just a matter of personal discipline or project planning. It is a systemic issue rooted in institutional culture, supervisory quality, unrealistic timelines, and lack of structural support.
We now have the data. We’ve had the conversations. The next step is action. PNN will reach out to all graduate schools over the next weeks, and ask what steps they are taking to improve PhD completion. Do you want us to drop by, or have a conversation? Reach out to us at voorzitter@hetpnn.nl.
